About your Search

20121202
20121210
SHOW
Hannity 10
( more )
STATION
MSNBCW 47
CNNW 34
CSPAN 23
FBC 19
FOXNEWS 19
CNBC 15
CSPAN2 15
CNN 12
MSNBC 11
KGO (ABC) 8
KPIX (CBS) 7
KQED (PBS) 7
KQEH (PBS) 6
WRC (NBC) 5
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 319
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 319 (some duplicates have been removed)
were to run $600 billion deficit for the next 10 years, by the end of that, the debt -- it would lower our gdp forecasts. if we were to cut with the fiscal consolidations that $600 billion deficit to $300 billion, we would be buying future generations gdp growth in the long run. by about half a% per year. it is ultimately a question of what kind of world we want to live in 10 years from now. if you want to look like the way europe has been growing, we will have a small consolidation, such as the small consolidation proposed by the president. if you want to have the kind of growth that i hope we can have with a bigger consolidation, that one is being proposed by speaker boehner. >> thank you. >> i would like to focus on something that is probably more of interest to the economists and ordinary people. let's talk about ratios. what i heard you lay out, dr. zandi, was more of an ideal situation. they get you at roughly at $3 trillion. deficit-reduction over the course of 10 years. you went on to add the $1.20 trillion over last year's negotiations on the debt ceiling. the negotiations ove
. and then this party that paraded around as the big deficit hawks, the guys that wanted to control spending, the only cuts they put on the table is playing at margins, increasing retirement age from 65 to 67 and adjusting rates for social security. this hasn't presented itself as a party that wants to cut spending. on one hand you have president obama's proposal, which most agree is the responsible way of raising the debt, raising rates. and responsible cuts on entitlements and discretionary spending versus republicans who are divided against something that is a chicken hawk when it comes to the deficits, that is the boehner approach, or the more extremist position which is absolutely nothing.รง so this is an extraordinary position for the republican party to have evolved into. >> you must respond to what julian just said. >> i like julian an awful lot but i think what he said is entirely wrong. it's fascinating president obama last july, july of 2011, said we can get $1.2 trillion in revenue where we don't have to raise marginal tax rates and close loopholes and julian says most economists agree, i
for washington to face, they do talk about the deficit and the debt in getting the fiscal house in order. that is not the full extent of the list. but behind different as we talk about priorities along partisan and racial lines. let's start with where we are and with the public has been pounded with this message week after we, on the question of resolving the immediate fiscal cliff. how would you describe your temperature, your feeling that there will be some kind of accommodation and a deal even on the tax and spending and sequester side or both? >> good morning. glad to be with you and give you my perspective on where we are. to the beginning of your question, i often say one i am giving remarks that -- people in the same group, no matter how ponce and they are, people -- no matter how partis and they are, people will say two things. i want you to go to washington and stand on your principal. i want you to fight for us. i say, i will. someone else will get up and say, i want you to compromise and find the middle ground and get things done. this is the 10th time this just happen to me.
situation to be in. >> as the conversation shifts really to the bottom line in the deficit. at the end of the day the whole thing is about -- it's optical illusions and face saving for republicans. whether it's the notion they may not vote yes but just present, which is complete smoke and mirrors or the fundamental argument which is closing loopholes is not a tax increase. of course it is. at the core this is about asking americans to pay more americans to the federal government. this is just -- it's -- bill clinton called it kabuki theater. it's a way for republicans not to be ashamed and walk back the ideological core they've run on for the past few years. >> if president obama is able to come out and say i'm going to support getting rid of tax ducks for charitable organizations, hospitals, universities, religious organizations, i want to get rid of that tax deduction f he puts his finger -- his hand anywhere near that decision, he's going to be a loony toon every hospital, church, philanthropic in the united states, from the rockefeller down to the littlest catholic charity will fig
money, and then on everybody else. not so he can lower the debt or the deficit, but so he can spend to his heart's content. for months, the president has been saying that all he wanted to raise taxes on the top 2% so he can tackle the debt and the deficit. however, yesterday, he finally revealed that that is not really is true intent. by demanding the power to raise the debt limit whenever he wants, by as much as he wants, he showed what he is really after is assuming unprecedented power to spend taxpayer dollars without any limit at all. this is not about getting a handle on deficits or debt or him. it is about spending even more than he already has. why else would you demand the power to raise the debt limit on his own? by the way, why on earth would we consider giving a president who has brought us four years of trillion dollar unchecked deficits of 30 to borrow? he is the last person who should have borrowing power. the only way we will cut spending around here is by using the debate over the debt limit to do it. now the president wants to remove that to cut all together. of cou
the president called his deficit reduction commission to give the president and -- an idea what we could do to get our fiscal house in order. i want to show in you this chart, mr. speaker, it's the chronic deficits we have had in this country, goes back to 1970. all this red ink represents the inflation adjusted, 2012 dollars, comparing apples to apples across this chart, the deficit that is we have had in this country, and you see going back to 197 o 0, mr. speaker, which happens to be the year of my birth, we have run a deficit every single year from 199 . you remember 1998 we had newt gingrich leading the first republican u.s. house of representatives in modern times. bill clinton in the white house. they came together to solve some big problems. welfare reform, health insurance reform. folks forget about health insurance reform. we did away with pre-existing conditions. did away with all of the impediments in the large group markets, what they call the plans, had great success in that area, and finally got back into some positive territory. to be truthful, this assumes that all the fede
deficits for as far as the eye can see. washington has got a spending problem, not a revenue problem. if the president doesn't agree with our proposal, i believe he's got an obligation to families and small businesses to offer a plan of his own, a plan that can pass both chambers of the congress. we're ready and eager to talk to the president about such a plan. >> you did speak with the president earlier this week. can you characterize that call? did he have any kind of count offer and we understand that he is making clear that it's got to be increase rates for the wealthy or no deal. are you willing to give a little bit? >> the phone call was pleasant but was more of the same. the conversations that the staff had yesterday were more of the same. it's time for the president if he's serious to come back to was a count offer. >> the jobs record indicated unemployment is down roughly a full point from this time last year. if no deal happens -- [inaudible] . why take such a risk when the job numbers are improving. >> because increasing tax rates will hit many small businesses that produc
to the labour party. they want to be in government and they claim they want to cut the deficit. what would they cut? what would they cut? if they object to the local government settlement and the object to the defense settlement and the objective the nhs budget and the object to the education budget, even though nhs schools are going up, and what exactly would they do? the problem is as was evident from the shadow chancellor's response, they didn't have anything to say on these matters but if they had a credible deficit plan then we would listen to the questions they ask us about the priorities of those plans. >> john stephenson. >> this cools and colleges of 270 million are extremely welcome. schools and colleges such as those in my constituency plans on the runway ready to take off, just in a little additional financial support. will the chancellor help those colleges and schools? >> i'm very happy to look personally at the case my honorable friend makes for his local education facility. these are of course other government departments but we have provided the money for education, for ne
, we are talking about deficit deduction. we are talking about raising revenue to a level in which can begin to support the kinds of investments we need to make to train our future work force and to create an environment in which we can care for the elderly. >> the think americans will remain optimistic but this did of the economy? if we have not tackle the things we have just talked about like the cost of education, the housing market? we are figuring out some philosophical issues about taxing and funding? >> i think the economy has been growing slowly and steadily all in the absence of any movement, which we have seen over the test of the last year. i have worked on guantanamo for the past 10 years. my sense is that if there is some movement until the positive direction, which have not seen out of washington and enter a long time, -- in a long time, at least we will not see head winds. we are making some progress. i see that continue. >> i want to come back to what todd said earlier. i am concerned about confidence being fragile. todd reference what happened until august of 2011. we
this morning. you made a comment that you did not believe anybody was interested in solving this deficit problem. that about knocked me out of my chair. i need you to explain to me and the rest of the people watching why you said that anthony g. to -- and i need you to expound on that. i will take my answer off the air. please ask mr. reid to not to be such an obstructionist and sit down and listen. have a great day. guest: imitate a few days for that message out to get through from me. there's a lot of concern about budget deficits. in the period after the downturn, budget deficits for in a range of 10% of the entire gdp, the entire economic output of the u.s. they have come down a little bit. economists think to be sustainable, budget deficits have to be in the range of 3% of economic output or a lower. the focus of this effort to reduce deficits now is on getting them, in the federal budget deficit to the range of 3% or so. that is what i mean when i say policymakers are not trying to get rid of the budget deficits. given the economic weakness, a little bit of deficit spending is pro
, and he said that it is untanble to not cut them because they are driving the budget deficit, and, you know, the whole entitlement issues, the real core of the problem, the taxing issue, yes, the pyrotechnics, and its -- there's the struggle between the republican and democratic view, but all the numbers people know that it's the entitlement issue so if there's a fix, trajectory to make it somehow stable, that would be -- that's the relation. uh-oh, you have something from the book. >> your books are all ultimately about power, how it's used, squandered, built, and so the sub text of the events that you write about is how life works, how washington works. my favorite sentence in "the price of politics" is, "when you need friends, it's too late to make them." what have you learned about washington and life from the grand bargain? what is the hundred-year lesson from how that unraveled? >> well, you mean last year? what happened last year? well, that they found a way to postpone everything, and, again, they can postpone lots of the problems, but postponement is the theme. the cliche, "ki
to prosperity or to cut our way out of this deficit problem that we have. we're going to need more revenues. in order to do that, that starts with higher rates for the folks at the top. >> reporter: the president did say today he would consider lowering rates again for the top two percent next year as part of a broader tax overhaul. the house republican plan envisions $2.2 trillion in deficit reductions over the next decade. $800 billion would come from new revenues but with no hike in tax rates for top earners. instead the plan relies on $1.2 trillion in reduced spending including $600 billion from changes in medicare and medicaid. at the white house today, the president met with a bipartisan group of governors pressing his own plan for deficit reduction. that proposal, $1.6 trillion in revenue from tax increases on the wealthy and $600 billion in spending cuts mostly from reductions in medicare. he also wants authority to raise the debt ceiling without congressional intervention. but governors emerged afterwards treading a line between the two sides. delaware governor jack markel, a democ
to hearing today from the experts that we have before us today on how to reduce the deficit while protecting middle income families. as we enter the holiday season, americans should not have to face the uncertainty that many will face with regard to their taxes. there is no reason that middle income families should go into this holiday season without knowing whether their taxes will go up next year. last year, democrats and republicans work together to cut nearly $1 trillion of spending. now we need to continue that bi-partisan work to cut more spending, and to bring in additional revenues. if congress fails to reach an agreement under the budget control act of 2011, $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts will take place between 2013 and 2021. republicans and democrats agree that indiscriminate across-the- board cuts is not the right and to do at this time in our nation's history. if we trigger the automatic spending cuts and tax increases, gross margin bottom will fall by half a percentage point. we will reverse the hard-fought gains over the past few years. we cannot afford to go backwar
and screaming that can't be part of it, yet all of them privately will tell you what's driving the deficit more than any single thing of medicare and medicaid and longer-term social security, so the mere fact that we are discussing those types of things fit. in terms of the votes, look, if it's going to be a deal there has to be votes from both sides. the reality is -- and these guys, the president and the speaker dealt with one another before. they've never been able to come to a deal. they came to a huge deal during the lame-duck session in 2010 on extending the bush tax cuts. they came to another deal without shutting down the government in april of 2011 cutting discretionary spending by billions of dollars and they came to another one on the debt ceiling as well which was a 2.2 trillion dollar long-term reduction in exchange for an increase in the debt ceiling. so, you know, the need to take it to another level. this is a more complex problem, and it's the beginning of a series of negotiations between the two. they are going to be together for the next four years. the president won the elec
it in building a good, solid farm bill which actually found $23 billion in savings towards the deficit. we did it in passing a strong highway bill that will strengthen our nation's infrastructure. and we did it most recently this week in working through a large and complex defense authorization bill that will keep our nation safer and more secure in these perilous times. it will take more of this kind of cooperation and consensus building to address the very real and substantial challenges facing our nation today. that is why i'm deeply concerned about a proposal floated recently by some members of the majority regarding the rules of the senate. they propose to change the nearly 100-year-old senate rule that requires a two-thirds majority to change the operating rules of the senate. our colleagues in the majority are proposing to use a simple majority vote to make the change. that's the issue here. the issue is the manner in which they plan to do it. once the precedent of changing a rule with a simple majority vote is established, 51 senators could change the rules to suit their own convenienc
at all of these programs, are they even going to reduce the deficit? if they have the combined affect of slowing down the economy, the deficit reduction doesn't take place. they have to be more pro active and they have to get aggressive. but none of these guys understand economics. you are talking about a bunch of lawyers. you are talking about a bunch of people that study political science. you don't have anybody in congress that understands economic and they are following poor economic history and applying the same medicine. >> i am only one man. i can't save the world. this super hero is looking at me. again drawing exactly to scale. this just in, an urgent bull law -- bulletin coming in. i am getting results as i speak. you don't think i could perform heroic feats? right this second news from the united states senate that they are moving right now. right now. let me quote -- okay it is not on the stuff i just talked about. apparently harry reid is trying to move heaven and earth for a waiver to allow food in the congressional auditorium. let may get this straight. let me get this
% of the deficit. we have spend ourselves into a hole and we're not going to raise taxes, borrow money and get out of it. will i accept a tax increase as part of a deal to actually solve our problems? yes. but the president is negotiating with the wrong people. he needs to be negotiating with our bond holders in china. because if we don't put a creditable plan on this, on the discussion, ultimately, we all lose. >> you got your colleague debbie stabenow, on the your screen as well, can you say quickly what it is going to take? >> well, we got to quit playing the game, george, you can't continue to lie to the american people, there is no way to fix medicare under the guidelines of aarp that our tax dollars are now advertising to say not fix it. the way we can fix it is to control the cost. the way to control the cost is to have more individual participation. there's a lot of ways to do that. you can't play the game and hide. medicare and social security and medicaid if those aren't fixed if we're not honest about how to fix them and the fact, that, yes, everybody in this country will have to partic
. let me give you an example, all right? is deficit reduction a serious issue? it is. i'm in the middle of that debate right now. but you know what is a more serious issue according to the american people? the need to create millions and millions of jobs. now how often are you turning on tv and saying, "hey, we're in the middle of a terrible recession. it is, we have 15% real unemployment or underemployment in america. we've got to create millions of jobs." that's what working people are saying, but the big money interests are saying, "oh, we've got to cut social security. we've got to cut medicare. we've got to cut medicaid." there is no other option. so i give you that just as an example of how corporate media throws out one set of ideas, where the american people are thinking that jobs are probably more important. >> it has probably not escaped your attention that the mantra "fiscal cliff, fiscal cliff, fiscal cliff" is played out every night on the evening news and the corporate news. what does that say to you? that you'd get "fiscal cliff, fiscal cliff," but not "job crisis, job cr
at revenue from somebody. on the state side, when i got elections a $3.65 billion deficit. the worst in the nation. i quickly realized it's too large to tax your way out of or to cut your way out. it had to be a combination. that portion hasn't happened to the extent we presumed it would. this year, we have to trim expenditures by $365 million more than we otherwise would have. but, the grand bargain with the public is, to maintain a level of service they have a comfort level with. to not overdo it, not overextend ones self. >> when grow to voters and say, we are going to raise taxes, what is the pitch? >> i did 14 town hall meetings, no, 17 town hall meetings and got yelled at at every single one of them. we had a conversation with the public about what are the options. if you are talking cutting a budget by 17% because that's what the revenue short fall was, they quickly understood, you can't cut a budget 17% in a single year and sustain the level of services that allow their children to be educate and their mother and father remain in a nursing home and receive benefits and so see
with the president and other ceo's to discuss the impending crisis. we even published their own study on the deficit, copies of which are available here today. we look forward to continuing this conversation, keeping the dialogue on going for the next month is critical if we're going to solve this problem -- and we think our panel will be very enlightening in terms of what the issues are. so, al, with that i will turn it over to you and the panel. we look forward to reproductive hour. thank you very much. >> can everybody hear? i welcome you all to bgov -- if you do not know as much about it as you want, i invite you to stay, because it really is a fabulous place. we do have an all-star panel. i will start with my left, which is where bob corker says i always start. tim pawlenty, former governor of minnesota. i wrote that i thought that if he could get the nomination he would have been the strongest republican presidential candidate. i was absolutely right -- we just could not figure out how to get there from here. tim is now the head of the financial services round table, a job he took just about a
, we have seen record deficits and a record debt accumulate, and yet he keeps demanding that we raise taxes to pay for more spending. this will only hurt our economy. ernst and young has done an analysis of the president's proposal and said it will cost several hundreds thousands of jobs. there is a better way and the speaker has laid it out. it is an approach that calls for tax reform by reforming the tax code and passing responsible spending cuts in order to get our fiscal house in order. that's what america wants. this is our opportunity to do the big things. this is our moment to provide that leadership that america desperately wants and we stand here ready to take the action necessary. >> the american people are hurting right now and now is the moment where we need to step up to the plate and solve the problem. i don't know how any of us can look our kids and grandkids in the eye and explain to them that we aren't willing to pay for the things we are enjoying today but just going to send them the bill. that's why republicans have the proposal on the table that fixes the problem,
us with the deficit of one. that is the deficit. sizable it is. this will be the president's fourth for which he is personally responsible, fourth deficit in excess of a trillion dollars. president obama wants to plug that trillion dollars hole by raising taxes on household incomes, as we all know that have incomes over $250,000. the top 2%. that would bring in $802 million, $82 billion. that'sbout 8% of that deficit. so does that suggt we have a tax problem or, perhaps, a spending problem? think about this taxpayers making more than $250,000 representing the top 2% paid more than 46% f all texas. that would seem like a pretty fair deal to most of us, but the president says it is not fair. we don't know what that number is. how much should it be? and contrary to what the president would have you believe as he campaigns untack sites all around the country and against the wealthy, he's doing a lot of that. the bush tax rates are not the root of our problems. in fact, individual tax payments rose, get this, $2,303,000,000,000 or 26%. over the past two ears. under those very low unshare
're serious about reducing our deficit, while still investing in things like education and research that are important to growing our economy, and if we're serious about protecting middle class families, we're also going to have to ask the wealthiest americans to pay higher tax rates. that's one wrins pal i won't compromise on. >> good saturday morning to you, mike. >> hi, alex. >> let's talk about the time line. is there a realistic one in which this can all get done by the beginning of the year? >> i think there is, alex. i think people know the parameters of the year. it's just can they get there, do they have the political will to get there. more importantly, alex, do they have the votes to get there in the house of representatives. you heard the president. he says no compromise on this issue of raising taxes for the wealthy. there's one glimmer of hope, how much to hike taxes. as you know, clinton tax rates for wealthiest americans were 39.6%. that's what's going to happen at the beginning of the year. right now they are 35%. the president has been insisting all along those rat
. it is also the excesses. look at the road we are on. a trillion dollar deficit every year. a debt crisis on the horizon. debt on this scale is destructive on so many ways. one of them is that it draws resources away from private charity. even worse is the prospect of a debt crisis, which will, unless we do something very soon. when government finances collapsed, it is the most vulnerable who are the victims, which we are seeing in europe. many feel they have nowhere to turn. we must never let that happen here. and election has come and gone. the people have made their choice. policy-makers still have a duty to choose between ideas that work and those that do not. when one economic policy after another has failed our working families, it is no answer to expressed compassion for them or create government programs that offer promise but do not create reforms. we must come together to advance new strategies for the the people out of poverty. let's go with what works. looking around this room at the men and women who are carrying legacy, i know we are answering the call. this cause is right.
. not a driver of the deficit but, hey, cut that. one more specific. preserve the bush-era tax rates for income over $250,000. it's not a tax increase for everybody who earns over $250,000. it's only the income over $250,000 that would get additional taxes if the bush-era rates went away and the president's proposal was passed. but, no, they want to preserve -- totally preserve tax cuts for income over $250,000. they want to preserve the reduced capital gains rate and dividends rate which principally who ben pets, who else, millionaires and billionaires. now -- benefits, who else, millionaires and billionaires. they did have the jay wellington wimpy plan. you remember him? popeye. i will pay you for a hamburger today. unspecified tax loopholes. we will lower the tax rates for the people on the top. but they'll raise over $800 billion. the ability to deduct the interest on their home mortgage, do they want to take that away? probably. got to come from something pretty big. they don't want to touch the billionaire, millionaire job creator class. now, you know, that's a pretty interesting position
is to go over the fiscal cliff. it maximizing the deficit reduction. there's no deal cut between republicans and democrats. it's not going to reduce the amount of money coming out of the deficit by a lot. so if you do that, you go back to the clinton tax rates, cut some defense and we have a short, mild recession for two quarters. we have to get serious about the deficit e. i have no belief that the congress is going to get serious about the deficit. so tom cole was right because he wants to get the republicans back in the mainstream. but the best thing the country could do is go over the cliff. >> timothy geithner doesn't agree with you on that. >> he may or may not. but i looked at this a lot of ways. the people inside washington are awfully smart and awfully out of touch. we need to do something about the deficit. going over the fiscal cliff is the best thing we're going to get out of washington in terms of serious production to the deficit. we will suffer, but we got ourselves into this. we're not going to get out without some pain. i think we are going to go over the cliff.
intervention to curb the deficit. it has been astronomical. then i heard barack obama say the way we are going to do it is by making more cuts in various ways. he was saying by making more cuts and the only people it is going to hurt is the working class and somewhat of the middle-class. he should mention the fact that out of control spending has a lot to do with the credit card crunch. specifically because of the middle-class. i think if we get those tax cuts centered with them, i do not think the poll would be affected. you have these small companies that are developing, and he is saying have those small companies hire more people and get them involved, but come consumer expenditures. that is partially i think a solution. host: you are calling on the republican line and you think hillary clinton would make a good candidate. would you vote for her in 2016? caller: i think she would be a very vital aspect to the political process. as far as her running for president, 2016 -- god knows what may happen from this point to that point. as far as her role as a democrat, i think by working along with
times." so far in fiscal year 2013, the government notching up a $172 billion deficit in november a lawn. jams is joining us from orlando, florida on the democrats' line. caller: i think the number one priority is the people, and i think he will do a good job. people should give him more credit and let him do what he is doing. it will take time. i think he has a lot on his hands to deal with now. host: if you get through, turn the volume down on the tv set. this is from "to the new york times." our question -- what should be the president's number one agenda. next up is christine from new york city on the independent line. caller: good morning. i believe the president will not be able to accomplish his agenda without doing something that i believe is supported by the majority of the american people, that is the critical need for campaign finance reform to restore us to democracy that the people are represented at intergovernment instead of special interests. if we got campaign finance reform enacted, i know john mccain wanted it and a lot of other people -- we could then move on to do wh
of payments deficit remains petroleum, and to increase our g.d.p. by the maximization of these activities in the united states rather than exporting our dollars abroad. so thank you very much and i think we can sit down now or -- yeah. >> thank you. give us a moment to take our seats. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, our panel discussion is about to begin, featuring senator lamar alexander, senator roy blunt, and our moderator, christine romans. >> can you hear me now? there we go. good morning, rn. -- all right. so i'm a lazy moderator. i've warned everyone. we want to get the ball rolling and talk about this report, talk about the future of energy in this country, and the future of transportation and america's national security with regards to energy. but i want to make sure that all of you know to please jump in. i don't want to ask a question and then ask another question. i want this to be a discussion, and i'll steer it. everyone agree? do we all agree? wonderful. let me start first with fred. nice to see you again. >> good to see you. >> you've heard the findings of the report,
the deficit we have. the truth is, if you want to balance the budget, which i do, you have to have increased revenues and you have significant spending cuts. and you have said many times on this program that raising taxes on rich people is not enough to deal with the deficit. you are right. the truth is, the best thing we could do is go over the fiscal cliff. we have the same tax rates that we have when bill clinton was president. significant cuts in defense and also significant human services can you tell us. >> katie, let me ask you, before you respond to what governor dean is saying. there is logic to what howard dean is saying. i don't happen to agree with it. but i know where he's coming from. katie, let me ask you this -- katie can't hear me. we'll wait for her to get back hooked in. howard, what about the notion that i'm posing tonight -- i've said this a few times -- republicans better be careful. they're not going down your road and the democrats aren't going down your road. you have middle class tax cuts for the democrats and it sometimes sounds to me as an old reagan conservative
been making noise for the last few years about the deficit. democrats have mimicked the noise. yes, we have a huge deficit problem. you get in public opinion polls, overwhelming majorities say yes. they look at the polls and respond to it. something similar happened on medicare. we have the notion of there's a medicare crisis. there's an entitlement. this is a health care crisis. >> i really need to say about jonathans piece. i am liberal, but that is the worst example i have heard. take people out of a popular -- i hope this is not the white house position. take people out of a popular program that works and they love, put them into obama care that is not so popular and they don't necessarily love. take away something they like and give them something liberals think they should like. >> the right question is, the portuguese have an average income lower than ours with universal health care. it costs two-thirds of their economy compared to our economy. we are having the wrong discussion. here is the program. start by lowering medicare is an option to 55 or 40. stop reacting to what -- >
talked about during the campaign, which is a balanced, responsible approach to deficit reduction that can help give businesses certainty and make sure that the country grows. and unfortunately, the speaker's proposal right now is still out of balance. >> sometimes you hear a sound byte and it sounds like the normal talking points of the campaign that you always here, you're always hearing politicians saying the same thing. but listen again to that last thing that the president said there. >> unfortunately the speaker's proposal right now is still out of balance. >> speaker's proposal is out of balance. empirical statement, sort of. there's a way to judge whether or not that statement is true. what's happening in washington is both sides, republicans and democrats, are making offers and counteroffers about how to deal with the fiscal mess that they created. this artificial debt line that washington created. the white house made its offer to republicans last week. they sent timothy geithner up to capitol hill to unveil the administration's offer to congressional republicans. the offer was e
to the deficit. it's just irresponsible to even put social security in a discussion as we are trying to get a deal. medicare can, i think, be massaged in terms of means testing. with the upper income individuals paying more or sometimes all of their medical expenses, it makes no sense for the government to pay medicare costs for someone earning $700,000 a year. so i think we can do some means testing. but by no means am i saying it should be low enough so our elderly and poorist americans are going to pay for the deficit. but we want a deal. and keep in mind, i think this is very important. if the bush tax cuts are expired, as they will be, just as sure as today is friday, they are gone, that generates $950 billion toward the deficit over a ten-year period. we'd set aside $1.2 trillion. we're almost there. and if you do means testing on medicare, we make it. >> well, the republicans would never go along with that kind of means testing because that would hit the wealthier americans. that's who they are going to protect. how would that work out? >> what i would hope is if republicans fight a
but used that money for deficit reduction because he believed that would control the economy. president clinton did listen to him. and i'll tell you, i talked to bob rubin about that anecdote where clinton says you tell me a bunch of bond traders control the economy -- i'm paraphrasing -- and rubin said, yes, i am. i asked him about that once a couple years ago, and he said it was true. it wasn't as dramatic woodward made it out to be, but it did has happen. but you didn't get that out of geithner. you kind of don't think you'll get that out of lew. he's very much aligned intellectually with president obama particularly on the notion of fairnesses. you know, you talk to economistses. should we really be raising taxes now? no. hour hour tax increases, we're going to lose the deductions -- >> probably shouldn't be cutting that much. the economy is like in a very weird state right now, kind of like i think the notion is to grow it now, you know? and, you know, this guy doesn't see that. he sees raising taxes not as an economic efficiency so to speak, but as you know, you don't get a lot of
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 319 (some duplicates have been removed)